5 ms·

''Smoking gun proof'': fossil fuel industry knew of climate danger by 1954

63 points by cf100clunk 3y ago

cf100clunk 3y ago
The proof described in the Guardian piece is that the petroleum industry was warned as early as 1954 of CO2 risks vis-a-vis Climate Change. From the article: “The possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate, rates of photosynthesis, and rates of equilibration with carbonate of the oceans may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization,” Epstein, a researcher at the California Institute of Technology (or Caltech), wrote to the group in November 1954.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
blowsand 3y ago
There was an interesting thread on a legal blog (which I can’t find at the moment), but essentially the thread related to US and state regulations over the years creating complicity in any “wrongdoing”. For example in California the CARB was/is setting standards and regulations based on their own analysis and science, and for the state to then turn around and proclaim the oil industry as evil seemed to be political posturing more than anything.
- cf100clunk 3y ago
  The CARB was created in 1967. The ''smoking gun'' document described in this article was written in 1954. Presumably it was not provided to Reagan's state government prior to his establishment of CARB.
- whycome 3y ago
  > which I can’t find at the moment I swear I wouldn't bookmark a lot of things because I was confident I could quickly find them again using search. Recently, it's been a nightmare. Search engines have definitely changed.
ZunarJ5 3y ago
Man-made climate change was being discussed in the 1800s. It is not a new idea. https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687 https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of...
- cf100clunk 3y ago
  That's important to note, but not what this is about. In this case, a direct link is seen between what might be the birth of climate change science as we know it by the petroleum industry that has fought so long to denounce it.
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > It is not a new idea. Lying to the public and funding astroturf campaigns to deny it on the other hand… > The fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion dollar disinformation, propaganda and lobbying campaign to delay climate action by confusing the public and policymakers about the climate crisis and its solutions. This has involved a remarkable array of advertisements – with headlines ranging from “Lies they tell our children” to “Oil pumps life” – seeking to convince the public that the climate crisis is not real, not human-made, not serious and not solvable. The campaign continues to this day. […] > Between 1996 and 1998, for instance, Mobil ran 12 advertorials timed with the 1997 UN Kyoto negotiations that questioned whether the climate crisis is real and human-made and 10 that downplayed its seriousness. “Reset the alarm,” one ad suggested. “Let’s not rush to a decision at Kyoto … We still don’t know what role man-made greenhouse gases might play in warming the planet.” * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forg... (The article has scans of the various ad campaigns.) > A dominant public narrative about climate change is that “we are all to blame.” Another is that society must inevitably rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. How did these become conventional wisdom? We show that one source of these arguments is fossil fuel industry propaganda. ExxonMobil advertisements worked to shift responsibility for global warming away from the fossil fuel industry and onto consumers. They also said that climate change was a “risk,” rather than a reality, that renewable energy is unreliable, and that the fossil fuel industry offered meaningful leadership on climate change. We show that much of this rhetoric is similar to that used by the tobacco industry. Our research suggests warning signs that the fossil fuel industry is using the subtle micro-politics of language to downplay its role in the climate crisis and to continue to undermine climate litigation, regulation, and activism. * https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00233-5 https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00233-... > "It's incredibly subtle, and frankly, a bit patronizing because it's gaslighting to insist that consumers are responsible, and then present the company as a trustworthy innovator who we should rely on to make things better," Supran said. * https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/exxonmobil-blames-climate-change-on-the-public-by-using-misleading-language-researchers-say-1.6031355 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/exxonmobil-blames-clima...
quonn 3y ago
I find it strange to blame the industry just to absolve everyone else. As if they had been in a somehow privileged position to know. To me it seems like there was some early research and then more and more research, so that by the 80s there was a clear picture that included the likely scope of the consequences. Despite that, the technology to move away from fossil fuels at scale was just not there yet. Now we have the means and yet it is extremely difficult to get even moderate measures passed if it means a car needs a few minutes longer to charge or shower can‘t take as long or the energy is just more expensive and so perhaps something else has to give. Like the second car per family. So I see no need to look far back. It‘s a bit like the diabetic regretting that nobody told them how harmful all the donuts were, all while they still don‘t diet because „now it‘s too late anyway“.
- cf100clunk 3y ago
  > As if they had been in a somehow privileged position to know That's the very point of this ''smoking gun'' article: the petroleum industry had an originators' view of the birth of climate change science, while suppressing and ridiculing its findings over the decades since.
  - quonn 3y ago
    How is this „originators‘ view“ relevant? It isn‘t. Since nobody seem to like my example of the diabetic, here‘s another one: If someone publishes an article in 30 years that describes how search engine or social media companies had internal research that shows that their products have privacy issues and are addictive to the young, would that be a scandal? Probably, but it shouldn‘t be. Because these companies have no special secret access to these facts and everyone knows them. But it nevertheless takes 10 or 15 years to get people to switch from Chrome to Firefox or to get them off social media and the products are like that because nobody wants to pay for them.
    - Volundr 3y ago
      Your saying <X> knew <Y> was harmful for decades, and <X> continued to do <Y> while gaslighting everyone by claiming <Y> is fine, even as evidence continues to mount just how bad <Y> is because someone else could have also studied <Y> is a really weird hill to die on. Yes, if someone knows something is bad, and lies about it for decades, while attempting to discredit everyone studying that thing and finding out it's bad, it's going to be a scandal when it finally comes out they've been lying to everyone for decades and knew it. As it should be. "Hey guys, technically you could have found the same information I did and known I was lying" doesn't and shouldn't excuse it.
aniftythrifrty 3y ago
Will you drive any less today?
alienicecream 3y ago
Waaaaah, I want all my modern conveniences with none of the costs.
- cf100clunk 3y ago
  In order to be enjoying our way of life we must be destroying it?

63 points by cf100clunk 3y ago

The proof described in the Guardian piece is that the petroleum industry was warned as early as 1954 of CO2 risks vis-a-vis Climate Change. From the article: “The possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate, rates of photosynthesis, and rates of equilibration with carbonate of the oceans may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization,” Epstein, a researcher at the California Institute of Technology (or Caltech), wrote to the group in November 1954.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

blowsand 3y ago

There was an interesting thread on a legal blog (which I can’t find at the moment), but essentially the thread related to US and state regulations over the years creating complicity in any “wrongdoing”. For example in California the CARB was/is setting standards and regulations based on their own analysis and science, and for the state to then turn around and proclaim the oil industry as evil seemed to be political posturing more than anything.

cf100clunk 3y ago
The CARB was created in 1967. The ''smoking gun'' document described in this article was written in 1954. Presumably it was not provided to Reagan's state government prior to his establishment of CARB.
whycome 3y ago
> which I can’t find at the moment I swear I wouldn't bookmark a lot of things because I was confident I could quickly find them again using search. Recently, it's been a nightmare. Search engines have definitely changed.

ZunarJ5 3y ago

Man-made climate change was being discussed in the 1800s. It is not a new idea. https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687 https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of...

cf100clunk 3y ago
That's important to note, but not what this is about. In this case, a direct link is seen between what might be the birth of climate change science as we know it by the petroleum industry that has fought so long to denounce it.
throw0101d 3y ago
> It is not a new idea. Lying to the public and funding astroturf campaigns to deny it on the other hand… > The fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion dollar disinformation, propaganda and lobbying campaign to delay climate action by confusing the public and policymakers about the climate crisis and its solutions. This has involved a remarkable array of advertisements – with headlines ranging from “Lies they tell our children” to “Oil pumps life” – seeking to convince the public that the climate crisis is not real, not human-made, not serious and not solvable. The campaign continues to this day. […] > Between 1996 and 1998, for instance, Mobil ran 12 advertorials timed with the 1997 UN Kyoto negotiations that questioned whether the climate crisis is real and human-made and 10 that downplayed its seriousness. “Reset the alarm,” one ad suggested. “Let’s not rush to a decision at Kyoto … We still don’t know what role man-made greenhouse gases might play in warming the planet.” * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forg... (The article has scans of the various ad campaigns.) > A dominant public narrative about climate change is that “we are all to blame.” Another is that society must inevitably rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. How did these become conventional wisdom? We show that one source of these arguments is fossil fuel industry propaganda. ExxonMobil advertisements worked to shift responsibility for global warming away from the fossil fuel industry and onto consumers. They also said that climate change was a “risk,” rather than a reality, that renewable energy is unreliable, and that the fossil fuel industry offered meaningful leadership on climate change. We show that much of this rhetoric is similar to that used by the tobacco industry. Our research suggests warning signs that the fossil fuel industry is using the subtle micro-politics of language to downplay its role in the climate crisis and to continue to undermine climate litigation, regulation, and activism. * https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00233-5 https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00233-... > "It's incredibly subtle, and frankly, a bit patronizing because it's gaslighting to insist that consumers are responsible, and then present the company as a trustworthy innovator who we should rely on to make things better," Supran said. * https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/exxonmobil-blames-climate-change-on-the-public-by-using-misleading-language-researchers-say-1.6031355 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/exxonmobil-blames-clima...

quonn 3y ago

I find it strange to blame the industry just to absolve everyone else. As if they had been in a somehow privileged position to know. To me it seems like there was some early research and then more and more research, so that by the 80s there was a clear picture that included the likely scope of the consequences. Despite that, the technology to move away from fossil fuels at scale was just not there yet. Now we have the means and yet it is extremely difficult to get even moderate measures passed if it means a car needs a few minutes longer to charge or shower can‘t take as long or the energy is just more expensive and so perhaps something else has to give. Like the second car per family. So I see no need to look far back. It‘s a bit like the diabetic regretting that nobody told them how harmful all the donuts were, all while they still don‘t diet because „now it‘s too late anyway“.

cf100clunk 3y ago
> As if they had been in a somehow privileged position to know That's the very point of this ''smoking gun'' article: the petroleum industry had an originators' view of the birth of climate change science, while suppressing and ridiculing its findings over the decades since.
- quonn 3y ago
  How is this „originators‘ view“ relevant? It isn‘t. Since nobody seem to like my example of the diabetic, here‘s another one: If someone publishes an article in 30 years that describes how search engine or social media companies had internal research that shows that their products have privacy issues and are addictive to the young, would that be a scandal? Probably, but it shouldn‘t be. Because these companies have no special secret access to these facts and everyone knows them. But it nevertheless takes 10 or 15 years to get people to switch from Chrome to Firefox or to get them off social media and the products are like that because nobody wants to pay for them.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    Your saying <X> knew <Y> was harmful for decades, and <X> continued to do <Y> while gaslighting everyone by claiming <Y> is fine, even as evidence continues to mount just how bad <Y> is because someone else could have also studied <Y> is a really weird hill to die on. Yes, if someone knows something is bad, and lies about it for decades, while attempting to discredit everyone studying that thing and finding out it's bad, it's going to be a scandal when it finally comes out they've been lying to everyone for decades and knew it. As it should be. "Hey guys, technically you could have found the same information I did and known I was lying" doesn't and shouldn't excuse it.

aniftythrifrty 3y ago

Will you drive any less today?

alienicecream 3y ago

Waaaaah, I want all my modern conveniences with none of the costs.

cf100clunk 3y ago
In order to be enjoying our way of life we must be destroying it?